warri0r45

You're making me hungry. =P~ I wouldn't complain. I'd have them just as pictured.

Shotgun Harlots by Lynchmada

God damn terrorists. Australians? :lol:

Take the party out the backyard? Just let them know you don't want anything broken. If they are decent people I'm sure they will understand and respect what you expect of them.

You know as much as I dislike biblical literalism in respect to genesis, your half-acceptance of said bible story and half-acceptance of evolution is annoying. In trying to rationalise they days as hours to over 60 million years, you've just made natural evolution an impossibility due to lack of time scale (unless some of these days went for billions or near billions of years?). Then you conveniently mop this up by saying god isn't restricted by time. How can you have a half-miracle? How can you justify accepting half the scientific story? Some facts not as important as others? Radiometric dating not a factor in your thinking? Genesis only half-symbolic? Which parts can you call symbolic and which not? Sorry it just seems you're trying to half-heartedly incorporate the scientific perspective into your beliefs. I admire you for trying but if you're going to do this, you should probably know that with science it's not like you can just pick and choose the theory or fact that suits you.

I'm not surprised. The whole mentality of extremist Islam is 'convert or die.'

Yep, heat energy is most definately released from biochemical reactions. The deal here is that it's released as a result of matter changing it's chemical bonds via chemical reactions. The matter itself isn't turning into heat energy, it's the change in chemical bonds which is key here. Ya, if I recall don't our most efficient chemical reactions still only work at 39% efficiency, with the rest of the energy escaping as heat energy? :-k Yep, I've heard similar numbers before.

[/hide] What is empiricism? Also, could you give an example of the pick and choose thing? It's hard to comment on your argument if there's only a conclusion. As for the Jesus thing, you're EXACTLY right. From what I've studied, Christianity is different because it's all based on God's love. Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc. John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life. Something is said to be empirical when it is percievable through the natural senses. Empirical evidence would thus be material things; rocks, a pool of blood, DNA, a piece of clothing, etc, etc. Empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas.

Yep, heat energy is most definately released from biochemical reactions. The deal here is that it's released as a result of matter changing it's chemical bonds via chemical reactions. The matter itself isn't turning into heat energy, it's the change in chemical bonds which is key here.

The semantics here are kind of annoying me. I think "Matter (food) is sometimes coverted into compounds whose purpose is to release energy, depending on what type of compound from the food is in consideration and the needs of the organism" is more fitting than "Matter (food) is converted into energy" when talking biology. Anyway let me take this opportunity to analyse some of the positions of persons in your opening post. Processes such as cellular respiration convert matter into more usable forms such as ATP. The breakdown of ATP releases energy used to do work and this inevitably produces heat energy as a byproduct. In evidence of the evolution of these energy forms is the fact that you have a body temperature and can move. The key here is that the products of the breakdown of ATP are still there; ADP (adenosine diphosphate) and a phosphate molecule. They didn't do anything cosmological and dissapear into pure energy (forgive my sucky physics). The half truths and lack of detail in this statement make me consider it misleading. First, as explained, energy is released from certain compounds derived from food, those compounds aren't converted into energy. Secondly, this statement seems all inclusive. A lot of food turns into compounds used structurally, not energetically, thus not all food "turns into" energy. This is a step up from the quote of your friend. This one is not all inclusive because it correctly adds 'can'. Yet, the semantics here are still annoying me. Certain matter in us releases energy; it does not get converted into it. Perhaps your friend failed to realise this is likely largely because stuff he eats becomes stuff which makes up him. It's not less because it's converted into energy; it's less because we need it to form the structural components of our cells. There we go, got it off my chest. : If someone knows something about bioenergetics or the physics of biology which I don't, which is highly likely because I haven't studied it much, feel free to correct me.

The food (carbs, for example) carries energy in it's chemical bonds. The chemical bonds are manipulated (as in broken, reformed to produce new compounds) in the Krebs cycle of cellular respiration to produce more efficiently usable high energy compounds, such as ATP. So the food is not converted to energy, it's converted to other compounds which carry more efficiently usable energy. All the energy does is get converted from chemical bond to chemical bond. In a high energy molecule such as ATP, the energy stored in the phosphate-phosphate bond is so great that is can manipulate other compounds, such as opening a channel in a membrane protien to let selected ions through, for example. Biological energy needs to be acessable and targetable. This can't be done unless you store this energy in a molecule. Just saying 'food is turned into energy' is a bit off in my opinion. What about protiens? They are used structurally, not energetically (unless they really need to be, which for a healthy person they don't) You also find fats around every cell in your body performing a structural role. Carbs and nucleic acids have structural roles too; addition to protiens for cell to cell recognition and information carrying, respectively, for some examples. All of these compounds do carry energy in thier chemical bonds, though.

As Satenza said, such an event is hardly something you'll ever forget... if you have enough brain cells to make those neural pathways.

You know these two posts totally destroy your credibility :P Total ego burnz. Forum credz on decline. :XD: @ fakeitormakeit, I mostly agreed with you on the stereotyping point. I do think people should question other's beliefs but be critical of the belief, not attacking of the person.

Ghost of perdition by Opeth

Edit. Ignore this (again, forgive my half a brain for clicking quote instead of edit). :wall:

Edit. Ignore this.

Why do Atheists keep saying this kind of stuff when atheists killed the heck out of any religious people for the mere fact of believing in a God and worshiping that God during the French Revolution and in varied Communist countries? People are screwed up. Yes 500 years ago the Catholic Church did some terrible things. Yes kings used a religious front to pursue their own agenda. Yes Communist dictators murdered millions to pursue their own agenda. No entity out there is perfect regardless of if it is a religion or lack thereof because every entity is made up of people and people are fundamentally flawed. People can take perfection and screw it up. What must be done to pursue truth is to judge those people based upon the beliefs they claim to hold dear. Only then can we see what the true motives they hold and the actual pro's and con's of whatever belief structure they claim to believe. I think they keep saying this kind of stuff because atheism dosen't involve anything else bar lacking belief in something. Everything else is the person's own baggage, just like some pro-lifers killing people is an expression of thier own baggage, not the religion they are part of. If religious people were persecuted during the French revolution, is this because they follow the doctrine of atheism? Atheism says nothing of what others should believe or lack belief in and nothing of forcing anyone to do anything. Atheism is a position of an individual for the individual which entails lack of belief in a supernatural notion. The fact that atheists have done bad things is irrelevant to what atheism subscribes to, in other words. Same goes for religion. The fact that the crusades happened is irrelevant to christian culture as killing is not part of it (well, taking all those 'kill person x for action y' out of the bible would really help you guys out). I just wish every religious leader (especially in the Muslim world) severely got down the throat at those that dissent from the religion in the name of the religion, so the masses don't get the wrong impression. If someone starts using atheism and adds to it his/her own beliefs, I'm going to pull them back into line.

I'm trying to remember how they tested christian studies at the highschool I went to... Can't really remember at the moment. I do remember doing a few assignments relating to religions in general. It was pretty interesting. It was mostly about understanding different points of view from the major world religions. I did mine on Buddhism. Oh now I remember something else, we did a unit on ethics. It wasn't like 'what is right or wrong' then just dictating the Christian view, it was more looking at different views like situation ethincs, utilitarian ethics, virtue ethics, deontology and some others. It was a very liberal christian school in the above respects.

I agree with you. Not all christians believe the earth is 6000 years old and not all atheists have positive belief of the non-existance of god. Many christians are not fundamentalists and many atheists merely lack positive belief in the existance of god, to give some examples.

I totally agree with your statement: "Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be." (1) But why would you then write this: "99%+ of all scientists accept evolution" as some kind of argument for evolution. I'd say it's rather similar as (2) they assume that macro-evolution is true despite of the lack of evidence. Prehaps you'll say that there is evidence of macro-evolution but to me that evidence is about as strong as if I would be saying that there is evidence for christianity. Evidence such as the Bible or Jesus. (3) What I find to be strange is that you seem to think that some random belief is as likely (or unlikely) to be the truth as christianity is. I'm actually puzzled by the vast amount of muslims in the world. Just the sheer number of believers makes me think that there is something to it. It's strange that th are so many people who devote their lives to an idea/belief. And not just to believe that there is a God but to live by ancient books who tells you what's wrong and right and how to live your life. (4) I guess a solution would be that faith is some kind of mental disorder. But then it's a very common one as the non-religious people make up for only about 15% of the world's population. (1) What context did I write that in? If I wrote it to suggest the more accept it, the more true it is, I was wrong. (2) I didn't say anything about evolution in this discussion. Scientists don't assume macroevolution is true in spite of lacking evidence; there is evidence, thus it is accepted. If they assume it is true in spite of lacking evidence, which as far as I can tell is not the case, then I'd dearly like to hit them in the sternum several times. (3) Strange for you, not strange for me. Look from outside of your religion and you might see why I make such statements. As for sheer numbers and why would they all be following a lie? Number one, you neglect that the root of all religious ideals is faith and this is seen as virtuous. Number two, I don't think you've been thinking hard enough about how religion spreads through society (for the most part). I'm not in the least bit suprised that common ideas have spread through society to the extent that they have. (4) I wouldn't go that far. I just see people who value faith over reason as having thier priorities mixed up. I rather being as honest as I possibly can with regards to what is and what is not by relying on what I can know rather than what I can not.

I wonder where biblical literalists draw the line, if at all. Do they believe being born of a virgin is possible? Walking on water? If they call these miracles then why not call the creation of life on earth a miracle and not pretend it's factually true? Answer: because science has worked out the answer and it dosen't involve what it says in the bible. It's known that being born of a virgin or walking on water is physically impossible thus they are called miracles, but the creation of life by a supernatural entity must be factually accurate?

2nd semester, 1st year Uni. Classes all relate to biology or chemistry. 5 days a week, all mornings (two 8am starts, two 9am starts, one 10am start). If I don't have a prac class on, which is most days, I'm generally always home by 11am-1pm. I have motivational issues and this is evidenced by my favourite part of the day - buying food and leaving.

Is the number of believers of an idea completely insignificant? Like if I'm saying that I, as the only person on earth, believe in a big almighty blob. Would that be as improbable as the christian God since you would claim that they both lack evidence? Yes, they are both supernatral notions. They are both assumed without experiencing them. First you assume existance (though you can make some decent arguments for this), then you assume characteristics. The more characteristics you assume, the more of a bold claim you make. The number of believers means nothing when you understand the way in which most religion spreads and the mentality people have when they are religious. It's never an easy task to convince someone that the unprovable or unfalsifiable idea that they've held to with such faith for years is baseless. You always get rationalisations such as 'you can't prove god dosen't exist' and so forth. I would have seen such a rationalisation as a crutch rather than an upside but that's just me. Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be.

Thank you for posting in the first place, but that's to vague. Unfortunately i can't tell exactly what kind of information i'm looking for. When i had the idea of this thread, i thought about BlueLancer, because living off inheritance was something i immideatly could associate with some kind of astrologic symbolism. In this case the 8th house. I'm tempted to make a statement based on what i know of you from all the discussion threads, but that would be too light hearted and i couldn't justify it in the context of this thead. Sorry This would be easier if you knew which questions you needed answers to and specifically posed them, otherwise I'm just going to be rattling off stuff which I don't know the relevance of in respect to what it is you are looking for.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z5A0q63_gbo :lol: God yes.